Skip to main content
Tenth Circuit· 3/31/2009

Smith v. United States

Citations

  • 561 F.3d 1090
  • 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6949
  • 2009 WL 820177

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • exercising jurisdiction over appeal of denial of Rule 59(e) motion because plaintiff filed separate notice of appeal relating specifically to that denial
  • discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)’s legal standard assessing a motion to dismiss a complaint
  • affirming dismissal of Bivens claims against all defendants except for the “individual federal officials in their individual capacities”
  • evaluating the warrants and affidavits in reviewing a Fourth Amendment seizure case
  • “[W]hether a court should imply a Bivens remedy is not a question of subject matter jurisdiction.”
  • “[F]or purposes of resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, we accept as true all well-pled factual allegations in a complaint and view these allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Briscoe, Holloway, Murphy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

183 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

41 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Smith v. United States

1,734 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.